@navi Why would you want init scripts to be in any folder but /etc/init.d ?

Who wants to go looking in 2 places for scripts?

@SuperDicq @kaia I'd like to see Linus quad core mod and GNUboot a ThinkPad (he can't).

@SuperDicq @kaia The whole idea of free software is that there is no limit - there is no proprietary restrictions to get in your way.

There's no way Linus is good enough to mod a cooler to fit the G34 socket.

@phnt Those are private information that are not published.

Part of freedom is having the freedom to choose not to publish something.

@RedTechEngineer @tphinney I'm not a fan of any emoji - you should be able to actually render the character without spending 9000 hours.

@tphinney Another 8 emoji? Ugh.

There are only 1,112,064 code points - it seems we're on track to running out.

Whoops, correct too many times again.

@phnt @SuperDicq @mischievoustomato >Wayland compositors
Imagine using wayland.

Xorg master race.

@wolf480pl No.

Pouch batteries tend to be on the thinner side, as making them slightly thicker doesn't seem to increase the volume much.

The battery life is dependent mostly on the power efficiency of the SoC and mobile chipset and how much spying software the device runs.

Mobiles have gone from a 600mAh battery that lasts 2 weeks, to a several thousand mAh battery that doesn't last 3 days.

@phnt >If your software depends on glibc, it means you are already writing non-portable software.
GNU is designed to be portable.

The software will work on any OS that had glibc ported to it.

>the rest of the userspace can come from BSDs.
Why run a garbage userspace?

>glibc breaks ABI almost every release anyway, so binary backwards compatibility basically doesn't exist.
glibc's ABI is only designed to be forward compatible and why aren't you compiling from source code?

How proprietary software stops working is a feature, not a bug.

@phnt @SuperDicq @mischievoustomato GNU's going to outlast Linux easily.

Cope and seethe.

@RedTechEngineer @splitshockvirus The US defines miles based off metres - so yes, SI units with extra steps.

@RedTechEngineer @splitshockvirus SI units are fully documented and can be recalculated from the basic measurements?

@splitshockvirus >2 measurements.
>Both are useless.
You have: 1200 miles
You want: km
* 1931.2128

@GossiTheDog @microsoft Probably couldn't handle the raw freedom emanating from my account.

@LorenzoAncora >guarantee compatibility with older web browsers
Proprietary JS site do not support older browsers - those are primarily designed to run only on chrome and sometimes those run on firefox too.

If the browser doesn't support the used HTML5 features, chances are it won't support the execution of the JavaScript framework used either.

>the verification of data integrity and correctness happens server-side too, not only client-side.
It is a waste of electricity to check twice when you only need to check once.

Processing and altering collected data is up to the server.

If the task is processing and altering information for the user, then the user should do such processing on their own computer with free software without involving a server.

JavaScript exists because it was too easy to think that adding cancer in the form of scripting would make things nicer.

@LorenzoAncora >verification happens server-side,
Then then client-side JavaScript verification is clearly not needed.

>JavaScript is used for data gathering and preparation
HTML5 is perfectly capable of gathering data and preparing it for submission - it can even check the input format without JavaScript.

But instead of using the HTML5 forms, your typical web developer writes up some JavaScript abortion that performs far worse than the built-in forms.

@LorenzoAncora >some verifications cannot be implemented server-side, thus requiring JS.
The only place verification can work is server side - as the client cannot be trusted to follow a protocol.

>as JavaScript is and has always been the only way.
Imagine not even knowing about the previous existence of Flash.

JavaScript certainly isn't the only away - as it's easier to just write a free software client that implements the functionality in a sane language (you don't even need to bother to write one - you just make an API available with some documentation and someone will write one).

Using JavaScript to verify input is like trusting a client to provide a newline-terminated string to the server - the server needs to actually verify a string is newline terminated before processing an operation that expects a newline.

@LorenzoAncora @lispi314 @tennoseremel @quasi @lxo There is no legal requirement that the "verification" or "security policies" are implemented with JavaScript specifically.

JavaScript is just a cheap way to implement things (as web developers don't know HTML - only JavaScript), even though it is the worst way to implement the vast majority of functionality.

@lispi314 @LorenzoAncora @tennoseremel @lxo >Technically, other flaws in a browser implementation may permit it.
Technically yes, but every single exploit I've seen has used JavaScript.